LOUISIANA UNITED BUSINESS ASS'N v. Bridges
This text of 917 So. 2d 10 (LOUISIANA UNITED BUSINESS ASS'N v. Bridges) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
LOUISIANA UNITED BUSINESS ASSOCIATION, SELF INSURERS' FUND
v.
Mureal BRIDGES, Individually and on Behalf of Her Children, Johnell M. Bridges and Rodney L. Bridges
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
*11 Stephen Brooks, Covington, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee Louisiana United Business Assoc.
Paul Billingsley, Hammond, Counsel for Defendant/Appellant Mureal Bridges, Individually, and On Behalf of Johnell M. Bridges and Rodney L. Bridges.
Before: WHIPPLE, DOWNING, and HUGHES, JJ.
*12 HUGHES, J.
This is an appeal by the legal spouse and legitimate children of a deceased worker, killed in an on-the-job accident, from a denial of workers' compensation death benefits. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
John L. Bridges died on May 10, 2002 following a jobsite accident while working for Brunt Construction, Inc. (Brunt). Survivors of Mr. Bridges included: his wife, Mureal Bridges, and their two sons, Rodney Lance Bridges (born November 29, 1988) and Johnell Michael Bridges (born March 1, 1993); and Mr. Bridges' girlfriend, Mary Brown, and their son, Jaylyn Bridges (born July 20, 1994).
Prior to the accident in March of 1994, Mrs. Bridges had filed an action for divorce in the 21st Judicial District Court. A support judgment was signed in June of 2001 granting to Mrs. Bridges $150.00 per month in alimony pendente lite and $565.45 in child support. An April 22, 2002 minute entry of the 21st Judicial District Court also appears in the record indicating that an order had been issued reducing Mr. Bridges' child support to $350.00 per month and granting to Mrs. Bridges a divorce on the basis of adultery, but no judgment was ever signed. On June 11, 2002 Mrs. Bridges filed a motion to dismiss her divorce action citing the death of Mr. Bridges.
After paying death benefits to Mrs. Bridges and all three of Mr. Bridges' children from May 11, 2002 through April 25, 2003, Louisiana United Business Association, Self-Insurers' Fund (LUBA) discontinued payments to Mrs. Bridges and her sons. On April 29, 2003 LUBA filed a disputed claim form with the Office of Workers' Compensation (OWC) contending it had overpaid benefits to Mrs. Bridges and her sons. Following a March 22, 2004 hearing before the OWC, judgment was rendered decreeing that Mrs. Bridges failed to prove "dependency upon the decedent," Rodney and Johnell Bridges were "partially actually dependent upon the earnings of the decedent," and that Jaylyn Bridges was "conclusively [p]resumed to have been wholly and actually dependent upon the decedent." The OWC further ruled that LUBA was entitled to an LSA-R.S. 23:1206 reduction and "as such the credit is greater than and exceeds the amount of any future death benefits which would otherwise be owed."
From this judgment Mrs. Bridges appealed individually and as tutrix of her minor sons, asserting the OWC erred: (1) in failing to find that the minors Johnell M. Bridges and Rodney L. Bridges were totally dependent and Mureal Bridges partially dependent on the late John L. Bridges, thus entitling them to full benefits pursuant to LSA-R.S. 23:1231, et seq.; (2) in granting Brunt and LUBA credit for payments made to Mrs. Bridges pursuant to a compromise between herself and Mary Brown; (3) in calculating death benefits under LSA-R.S. 23:1231 et seq.; and (4) in failing to grant statutory penalties and attorney fees to Mrs. Bridges.
DISCUSSION
Persons who are conclusively presumed to be entitled to recover workers' compensation death benefits are enumerated in LSA-R.S. 23:1251 as follows:
The following persons shall be conclusively presumed to be wholly and actually dependent upon the deceased employee:
(1) A surviving spouse upon a deceased spouse with whom he or she is *13 living at the time of the accident or death.
(2) A child under the age of eighteen years ... upon the parent with whom he is living at the time of the injury of the parent . . . .
When a claimant cannot qualify under LSA-R.S. 23:1251 for a conclusive determination of dependency, the question of dependency is a matter of proof, with the claimant bearing that burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Castle v. Prudhomme Tank Truck Line, Inc., 417 So.2d 1205, 1207-8 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 422 So.2d 423 (La.1982). See also Deshotel v. Guichard Operating Company, 2003-303, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/19/03), 861 So.2d 697, 698-99, affirmed, XXXX-XXXX (La.12/20/04), 916 So.2d 72. Dependency is determined in accordance with the facts as they may be at the time of the accident. LSA-R.S. 23:1252; Ceco Construction, L.L.C. v. Pennington, XXXX-XXXX, p. 2 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/2/02), 836 So.2d 164, 165. See also Lathrop v. Hercules Transportation, 95-0936, p. 3 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/15/95), 666 So.2d 395, 396.
The OWC in the instant case presumably rejected the contention of Mrs. Bridges that despite ongoing divorce proceedings and the fact that Mr. Bridges was openly living with his girlfriend, Mary Brown, that he continued to live with Mrs. Bridges' family from time to time. Thus, the dependency of Mrs. Bridges and her children was required to be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. Mrs. Bridges testified that in addition to the child support payments that were garnished from Mr. Bridges' wages received from Brunt, he gave her several hundred dollars in cash each month. In holding that neither Mrs. Bridges nor her children were wholly dependent upon Mr. Bridges for support, the OWC judge must have rejected this assertion for, as LUBA asserts, it is incredible that Mr. Bridges would make substantial cash payments to Mrs. Bridges without receiving a credit against his current child support obligation or his child support arrearage of more than $30,000.00.
Nevertheless, the additional testimony of Mrs. Bridges, corroborated by testimony of her own relatives as well as relatives of Mr. Bridges, was uncontradicted that Mr. Bridges gave his sons "pocket money" on a monthly basis and paid them for assisting him in his lawn care business, in sums of $10.00 to $20.00 per week. Further, it was uncontradicted that Mr. Bridges gave his mother and sister money to buy food, clothing, and gifts for Rodney Lance Bridges and Johnell Michael Bridges. Mr. Bridges also was seen frequently visiting the boys at Mrs. Bridges' home, and he frequently took them on weekends to visit with his family members, financially supporting them during those visits.
Moreover, the verified affidavit of income and expenses submitted into evidence by Mrs. Bridges showed that she had a net income at the time of Mr. Bridges' death of $874.38 while her monthly personal expenses exceeded $2,000.00 and expenses for Rodney Lance Bridges and Johnell Michael Bridges exceeded $600.00 per month.
Prior to his death, Mr. Bridges had been under court order to pay his wife $150.00 per month in alimony and $565.45 per month in child support. The payroll records of Brunt indicate the following payments were made from Mr. Bridges' wages: for September, October, November, and December of 2001 from gross pay slightly exceeding $1,300.00 per month, approximately $525.00 in support was deducted from his monthly earnings leaving little more than $550.00 in net pay to Mr. Bridges; in January of 2002 from gross *14
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
917 So. 2d 10, 2005 WL 1366523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louisiana-united-business-assn-v-bridges-lactapp-2005.